Out In The Mountians : OPED - Nominating New Hampshire as the State Next Door to the Gay-Friendliest State

After being thankful that my chair was low to the floor, I guessed the April Fool’s edition of OITM had arrived late this year. But, no, September was clearly printed in the header. Then I thought maybe the headline was intended in an ironic way, something like "Nominating Keanu Reeves as the Best Actor Ever." Or that maybe those pranksters, the Log Cabin Republicans, were at it again, tossing out one of their amusing oxymorons such as "George W. Bush – Compassionate Conservative," in which case I was prepared to laugh and laugh!

But, it seemed this commentary was actually nominating New Hampshire as the GLBT-friendliest state in the union, beating out even California, New York, and Massachusetts!

I did find it curious that Vermont was left off this short-list of gay-friendly states, what with our progressive laws (most of them on the books for some time now), predominantly liberal political representation at state and federal levels, not to mention the recent colorful response to the nut-cases from Kansas, and, oh yes, that minor marriage case pending before the Supreme Court.

I found it especially curious since the article was published in OITM, which, unless I’m mistaken, is a Vermont newspaper. (Although I’ve encountered people as close as Montreal who have no idea Vermont exists, one would presume all New Hampshire residents are at least mildly aware there’s something between them and New York.)

I tried to imagine the psychology behind such a glaring omission. After much consideration, I decided Vermont’s absence from the article was a) a gross and negligent oversight, b) a deliberately snotty, unneighborly gesture, c) the case of the lesser desperately trying to overshadow the greater by irrationally pretending that the greater does not exist (an example of this syndrome would be Mariah Carey squinting past Aretha Franklin — no easy task — on "VH1 Divas Live"), or d) a provocation designed to raise the blood pressure of GLBT persons throughout the Green Mountain State.

Don’t get me wrong, I am more than pleased that New Hampshire is catching up to Vermont in terms of gay-friendly legislation — more power to everyone working hard to get those laws passed!

And I do admit to being surprised that New Hampshire is passing such laws. Long ago I had, not entirely fairly it seems, written off New Hampshire as Vermont’s evil, upside-down political twin. I stand corrected. New Hampshire’s lavender horse got a late start out of the gate, but if it’s finally gaining on Vermont’s pink pony; I say go for a photo finish! In short, I am tickled lavender and pink for New Hampshire, especially for all its GLBT citizens, and I salute Sen. Trombly and the other jockeys who rode that horse as fast as it could canter.

Still, even with all these recent legislative successes, I wonder what happened to the New Hampshire that refused, year after year, to adopt the Martin Luther King holiday? What happened to the New Hampshire that boasts one of the most stridently conservative "mainstream" newspapers in the country? What about the New Hampshire that elects, time after time, senators and representatives who are certainly not pals of the GLBT community? I’m thinking of Rep. Charles Bass, of Rep. John Sununu, of Sen. Judd Gregg, and, especially, of Sen. Bob Smith (not to be confused with the Bob Smith who penned "Openly Bob"). Does this New Hampshire no longer exist?

Just to make sure I wasn’t making any presumptions about the voting records of the aforementioned elected officials, I consulted two Web sites that keep track of such things, the Christian Coalition, and the Human Rights Campaign.

The results? All of New Hampshire’s federal politicians got high marks indeed on the CC’s 1998 scorecards: Rep. Sununu and Sen. Smith each scored a perfect 100 percent (gold stars for them!); Sen. Gregg finished close behind at 91 percent; Rep. Bass came in at an above-average 75 percent.

Vermont’s politicians, on the other hand, fared poorly: Sen. Jeffords and Sen. Leahy each scored a sorry nine percent, while Rep. Sanders received a big fat goose egg.

The HRC, shockingly enough, had an almost opposite report. In Vermont, Sen. Leahy and Sen. Jeffords scored 100 percent, while Rep. Sanders received 88 percent (did Bernie have a bad hair day at some point during that Congress?).

In New Hampshire, Sen. Smith — give the man points for consistency! — scored an unambiguous zero percent, with Rep. Sununu coming in at 12 percent, Sen. Gregg at 33 percent, and Rep. Bass at 38 percent.

Of course, Bob Smith is the type of senator (not to mention presidential candidate) any state would be proud to call its own: pro-flag burning amendment, pro-prayer in schools, ditto the NRA interpretation of the second amendment, anti-abortion, and, last but hardly least, deserter of the Republican party because it’s no longer "pure" enough for his tastes. Yes-siree-Bob, he’s a keeper!

Now, I know the article nominating New Hampshire as the gay-friendliest state was more concerned with in-state rather than federal legislation, but there’s still the wee matter of who elects these national representatives. Presumably, it’s the citizens of New Hampshire; if so, are they the type of citizens who would logically populate the gay-friendliest state? Maybe, as Sen. Trombly jestingly speculated in his article, it is the water or the air which makes the same people who elect those who pass gay-rights laws also elect those who would never include ‘gay’ and ‘rights’ in the same sentence unless it also included the word ‘special.’

I can only speculate that some freak weather phenomenon is sending Vermont air and water eastward, causing the conservative brain cells of one portion of New Hampshire’s population to atrophy and be replaced by the open-minded, independent-spirited brain cells for which Vermonters are justly known. Meanwhile, the other portion of the population — particularly that portion with any tie to Washington DC – remains oddly unaffected by the same weather phenomenon. Maybe one-way passports could be issued to those with ties to Washington? Readmittance would be contingent on their next CC report cards showing failing grades. Just a thought.

While it is a possible source of New Hampshire’s gay-friendly status, I’ve always found the "Live Free or Die" state a tad too macho for comfort. It’s something that Arnold or Charlton Heston might come up with after a few whiskeys, and we all know which side of the political fence they shoot on, don’t we?

Clearly New Hampshire is making strides in the right (or rather left) direction — hey, they’ve elected their first female governor and she’s not even a Republican! — but there’s a way to go before the Granite State has chiseled away at enough granite minds to truly make it a contender.

Until then, New Hampshire’s a bit like Keanu: he means well, he tries hard, he’s improving (I’m being generous here), but, please, save the Shakespeare for those who can talk the talk without sounding goofy.